One of the oldest and only remaining Catholic seminaries in Ireland is closing. This leads me to the question "Whats with the Irish becoming so irreligious of late?" I understand that their Church has had its share of scandals, but has a people who were formerly known for being very religious become so unreligious in such a short period of time?

What is the main, driving force behind the secularization of Irish society?

NY Archbishop Dolan to recommend Irish seminary at Maynooth be closed Low numbers and level of education prompts move to Rome college

By CATHY HAYES, IrishCentral.com Staff Writer

New York's Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan will submit a report to Pope Benedict XVI which is expected to recommend that all Irish priests be trained in the Pontifical Irish College in Rome according to the Irish Catholic newspaper.

This means that priests will no longer be trained in Ireland.

Dolan is one of the American and Canadian bishops tasked with enforcing strict new rules on the Irish church by the Vatican after the pedophile controversy.

His historic decision would mean that officially the seminaries in Ireland are no long "fit for mission". A senior academic told the Irish Catholic that the Apostolic visitor were "appalled" by the standards at Maynooth College, in Kildare where priests have been trained for centuries.

It seems that Dolan's plan would be to move all Irish seminarians to the Irish College in Rome reducing the number of non-Irish students there.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 07:33:38 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

What is the main, driving force behind the secularization of Irish society?

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." - Charles Darwin

What is the main, driving force behind the secularization of Irish society?

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." - Charles Darwin

The postmodern world-view (relative morality) gives the illusion of conscious-free behavior, is it really a surprise people are falling away from the faith, and it's surely not the result of science.

Atheism, as a world view, offers nothing of any meaning or value. It's logical ends are nihilism, it rejects the notion of an afterlife, a meaningful life, and all morality, among other things. Any atheist who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

The RC shot themselves in the foot when they changed their Mass and faith in general during the Vatican II council. I know lots of ex Catholics that quit going to Mass after the Mass changed. That I think is a big part of it.

What is the main, driving force behind the secularization of Irish society?

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." - Charles Darwin

The postmodern world-view (relative morality) gives the illusion of conscious-free behavior, is it really a surprise people are falling away from the faith, and it's surely not the result of science.

Atheism, as a world view, offers nothing of any meaning or value. It's logical ends are nihilism, it rejects the notion of an afterlife, a meaningful life, and all morality, among other things. Any atheist who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

It's the all-pervasive ripple effect of marxism, which can only suceed in a world without God. From the Frankfort Group in Berlin, to Columbia University, to the furthest reaches of every educational system in the west. It has traveled like a virus in the wild, ravaging the intellectual landscape.

Marx's ideal society is of no interest to those who believe in a transcendent reality because they believe they are going to a better world; they have the moral strength to resist tyranny in this world. (You may enslave their bodies, but you can't touch their minds.) It requires, rather, a citizenry that can be made to believe that this is the only world there is and that their wellbeing in it depends solely on the misguided ideals of a few flawed and unusually greedy men; those are the kinds of people who can be mobilized to revolution--desperate people who'll believe anything. Thus, God must die. The Left has been working on this project assiduously for the last 50 years, and it is bearing fruit. I mean, they've virtually eviscerated the Roman Catholic church.

That's why destroying religion is at the top of the marxist agenda. (I can hear the marxists coming out of the woodwork now. Scrabble, scrabble. I'm not going to waste my time debating them. To be a marxist christian is to admit you are an intellectual oxymoron. Marxism believes that mankind is fated; Christianity believes that mankind is free. Marxism believes in razing everybody to the same level, yet God has lovingly made us each unique. These ideas are diametrically opposed.)

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Psalm 14:1 I'm not as concerned that Roman Catholicism is on the decline in Eire, but I am concerned about the seemingly widespread apathy towards Christ our God.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

There are probably many reasons (and Vat II isn't likely to be one of them)

Haven't you seen the statistics of Pre Vat II post Vat II Catholicism. Personaly I come from a RC background and all of my family members quit RC'ism within a few years of the implimentation of the goofy new Mass.

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

It was more than that Wyatt. People either cut and ran or they toughed it out. I ran out into the secular world but I'd have gone there with or without a Council...so there are as many stories as there were people. But the sense of Catholic identity was ripped asunder liturgically, with respect to vocations, with respect to the liturgical cycle [calendar], and with respect to the articulation of familiar teachings, particularly those teachings which distinguished the Catholics from all others...but the fact of the matter remains that there were far more who stayed than there were those who ran.

I do not think that the "fall" in Ireland is because of the Council at all. I think it is because of her history and because the Church, through her priests and nuns, failed to uphold the truths of the faith and simple Catholic morality. Weakened as Catholic Ireland was from hundreds of years of religious abuse and physical starvation, she could not survive the let-down from her own leaders.

PS: I left this incomplete with respect to Robb's question. In the first place I do not believe that Catholics in Ireland are going to vanish, nor are they going to move to Orthodoxy. I do believe that there will be stronger and better priests and bishops emerge in Ireland and the Irish Catholics will experience a re-awakening of the faith, led by good men and women in vocations. The seminary was closed because it stank in all the deepest corners. It is not the first seminary in the world to be closed...only to be re-opened at a later date. When there are people willing to teach and live the faith in place...there will be open seminaries again in Ireland.

When my grandmother (a life-long RC from Mexico) passed on recently, we went to her house to take what we would most cherish from among her belongings. One of the things I found among her books was her sister's old Missal, copyright 1931, given to her by my great-grandmother. It is in Latin with English translation.

I have never been to a Latin ("Extraordinary Form") Mass, but if what I read in that missal is indicative of how the pre-Vatican II Mass was (and I have no reason to doubt it). then the Novus Ordo is an even bigger rip-off than I secretly suspected it was! Sheesh! I don't know about the specific case of the Irish, but I have no problem believing that it is at least a factor in the decline of the RC. I know I began to look to the Byzantines after putting up with much nonsense from the Latins, so it makes sense to me that others would make the extra effort and seek out Orthodoxy.

The RC shot themselves in the foot when they changed their Mass and faith in general during the Vatican II council. I know lots of ex Catholics that quit going to Mass after the Mass changed. That I think is a big part of it.

Even before Vatican II there was a serious problem in the Irish Catholic Church.

Honestly, I think it had to do with the drastic changes in the fasting regulations back in 1870 at Vatican I.

Both prayer and fasting have been neglected, and without prayer, one cannot live.Without fasting, one has no discipline to resist temptation.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

I also believe as mentioned above once fasting and deep Prayer has been elinimated from the Clergy ,the idle time has become the devils playground and look at the results now....

Molestation scandals that are shaking the very foundation of the faithful's faith....If One Can't trust Ones Spiritual Shepherds On This earth ,who can one trust in, Other Than God Himself.......

You and I agree here fully Stashko! In fact I think that the relaxation of the fasting practices and cycles, their virtual elimination in fact, along with, not the liturgy itself, but the liturgical cycle of festal octaves and the introduction of so-called ordinary time at the expense of the preparatory periods for Advent and Lent, etc. are THE greatest impediments to the resumption of communion.

These are the things that hit us where we live and breathe spiritually. These are the things that make us who we are as catholics and members of the Body of Christ, for they are the Way that he showed us many many generations ago.

You many not believe me but there are, in fact, many faithful Catholics who follow old patterns even within the Novus Ordo liturgy and in their homes they keep the old calendar and they keep the Advent fast and they fast before communion in the old way, and they teach their children. It is not dead...not at all.

What is the main, driving force behind the secularization of Irish society?

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." - Charles Darwin

The postmodern world-view (relative morality) gives the illusion of conscious-free behavior, is it really a surprise people are falling away from the faith, and it's surely not the result of science.

Atheism, as a world view, offers nothing of any meaning or value. It's logical ends are nihilism, it rejects the notion of an afterlife, a meaningful life, and all morality, among other things. Any atheist who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Not really

Quite so.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Grace and Peace Wyatt,

If such was the case, then you would have to lay blame on the Hierarchy who allowed such abuses and false views to go unchallenged for 30+ years. No longer can we say that the Roman Catholic Church is led inerrantly for surely we have all the evidence we need to prove otherwise within our own time. We have erred and we have the inordinate passions and sins to prove it within our own clergy.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

It becomes a difficult matter because Vatican II does not provide the specifics for changes in the Mass, but rather gives guidelines. Sacrosanctum concilium, for example, offers principles to be followed in reforming the liturgy, but leaves open the exact means of implementation.

The real changes were made through committees and petitions to the Pope. The bishops and priests subsequently made the norm what officially was an allowance or indulgence (e.g. extraordinary ministers of holy communion, communion in the hand, etc.)

Personally, I see Vatican II as slanting toward liberalism, if not in direct statements, then in the tone that pervades the documents.

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Grace and Peace Wyatt,

If such was the case, then you would have to lay blame on the Hierarchy who allowed such abuses and false views to go unchallenged for 30+ years. No longer can we say that the Roman Catholic Church is led inerrantly for surely we have all the evidence we need to prove otherwise within our own time. We have erred and we have the inordinate passions and sins to prove it within our own clergy.

I like Vatican Council II and deeply sympathize with what it tried to do within the Catholic Church (Open up the windows and let the fresh air in and so forth). I'm frankly so tired of hearing all this anti Vatican II propaganda tossed around the net, even on an Orthodox website like OCNet that it truly just gets old after a while. What exactly is the RCC so guilty of, trying to shed the pointless Medevil scholasticism and "Everyone is damned to Hell" mentality and open up to a more humanist, mystical theology? If anything Rome has moved consistently more towards an Orthodox eastern understanding of theology, morality, and yes even liturgy over the past five decades and that we should be extremely thankful for.If there have been abuses committed by the clergy, where is the proof that the Vatican Council had anything to do with them? Most of the priest who perpetrated these abuses were educated in the pre Vatican II seminaries and ordained in the pre Vatican II Church. There is absolutely no evidence that the Vatican Council or the reforms it instituted had anything to do with these abuses. If anything the culture of abuse and cover up has a lot more in common with the Pre- Conciliar clericalism and authoritarian attitudes of the RCC's past then the present age with its emphasis on transparency and empowered laity.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 04:01:39 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Grace and Peace Wyatt,

If such was the case, then you would have to lay blame on the Hierarchy who allowed such abuses and false views to go unchallenged for 30+ years. No longer can we say that the Roman Catholic Church is led inerrantly for surely we have all the evidence we need to prove otherwise within our own time. We have erred and we have the inordinate passions and sins to prove it within our own clergy.

I like Vatican Council II and deeply sympathize with what it tried to do within the Catholic Church (Open up the windows and let the fresh air in and so forth). I'm frankly so tired of hearing all this anti Vatican II propaganda tossed around the net, even on an Orthodox website like OCNet that it truly just gets old after a while. What exactly is the RCC so guilty of, trying to shed the pointless Medevil scholasticism and "Everyone is damned to Hell" mentality and open up to a more humanist, mystical theology? If anything Rome has moved consistently more towards an Orthodox eastern understanding of theology, morality, and yes even liturgy over the past five decades and that we should be extremely thankful for.If there have been abuses committed by the clergy, where is the proof that the Vatican Council had anything to do with them? Most of the priest who perpetrated these abuses were educated in the pre Vatican II seminaries and ordained in the pre Vatican II Church. There is absolutely no evidence that the Vatican Council or the reforms it instituted had anything to do with these abuses. If anything the culture of abuse and cover up has a lot more in common with the Pre- Conciliar clericalism and authoritarian attitudes of the RCC's past then the present age with its emphasis on transparency and empowered laity.

This doesn't hold up entirely as good history Robb...The kinder more mystical Church was apparent LONG before Vatican II. One of the ways that I've been able to open that line of thinking up more clearly is through a history of the monastic life and how that life once influenced a great multitude of the laity, then for a while had little to do but try to survive, and then began slowly coming back but without that old synergy with the laity that was all a part of monastic life. It is being forged again with third order religious but it still is a fact that diocesan priests provide the primary sources of spiritual life for most Catholics.

Go at the history using that as a pivotal point, and the writings of many of the saints since Trent and it is no longer so easy to draw that sharp line that you want to draw between Vatican II and what went before...presumably to at least Trent.

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Grace and Peace Wyatt,

If such was the case, then you would have to lay blame on the Hierarchy who allowed such abuses and false views to go unchallenged for 30+ years. No longer can we say that the Roman Catholic Church is led inerrantly for surely we have all the evidence we need to prove otherwise within our own time. We have erred and we have the inordinate passions and sins to prove it within our own clergy.

I like Vatican Council II and deeply sympathize with what it tried to do within the Catholic Church (Open up the windows and let the fresh air in and so forth). I'm frankly so tired of hearing all this anti Vatican II propaganda tossed around the net, even on an Orthodox website like OCNet that it truly just gets old after a while. What exactly is the RCC so guilty of, trying to shed the pointless Medevil scholasticism and "Everyone is damned to Hell" mentality and open up to a more humanist, mystical theology? If anything Rome has moved consistently more towards an Orthodox eastern understanding of theology, morality, and yes even liturgy over the past five decades and that we should be extremely thankful for.If there have been abuses committed by the clergy, where is the proof that the Vatican Council had anything to do with them? Most of the priest who perpetrated these abuses were educated in the pre Vatican II seminaries and ordained in the pre Vatican II Church. There is absolutely no evidence that the Vatican Council or the reforms it instituted had anything to do with these abuses. If anything the culture of abuse and cover up has a lot more in common with the Pre- Conciliar clericalism and authoritarian attitudes of the RCC's past then the present age with its emphasis on transparency and empowered laity.

This doesn't hold up entirely as good history Robb...The kinder more mystical Church was apparent LONG before Vatican II. One of the ways that I've been able to open that line of thinking up more clearly is through a history of the monastic life and how that life once influenced a great multitude of the laity, then for a while had little to do but try to survive, and then began slowly coming back but without that old synergy with the laity that was all a part of monastic life. It is being forged again with third order religious but it still is a fact that diocesan priests provide the primary sources of spiritual life for most Catholics.

Go at the history using that as a pivotal point, and the writings of many of the saints since Trent and it is no longer so easy to draw that sharp line that you want to draw between Vatican II and what went before...presumably to at least Trent.

M

I do know that most of the pre Vatican II saints believed that almost everyone, including most Catholics went to Hell when they died. Now it is different, almost the exact opposite (Look at the Popes encyclical "Spe Salvi"). Something must have prompted this radical change in theology and morality from the Church. The old attitudes of clericalism and authoritarianism have also been greatly eroded and replaced with a more open, transparent, and lay centered Church (Or, at least one that tries to be).

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

I do know that most of the pre Vatican II saints believed that almost everyone, including most Catholics went to Hell when they died. Now it is different, almost the exact opposite (Look at the Popes encyclical "Spe Salvi"). Something must have prompted this radical change in theology and morality from the Church. The old attitudes of clericalism and authoritarianism have also been greatly eroded and replaced with a more open, transparent, and lay centered Church (Or, at least one that tries to be).

Oh my!! Do you know this because you've read them or because somebody has told you that? None of the greatest spiritual writers of the Church had that to say at all. In fact I have a mental image that is rather humorous of them all hanging over a cloud looking down at you saying "WHAT?"....

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Grace and Peace Wyatt,

If such was the case, then you would have to lay blame on the Hierarchy who allowed such abuses and false views to go unchallenged for 30+ years. No longer can we say that the Roman Catholic Church is led inerrantly for surely we have all the evidence we need to prove otherwise within our own time. We have erred and we have the inordinate passions and sins to prove it within our own clergy.

I like Vatican Council II and deeply sympathize with what it tried to do within the Catholic Church (Open up the windows and let the fresh air in and so forth). I'm frankly so tired of hearing all this anti Vatican II propaganda tossed around the net, even on an Orthodox website like OCNet that it truly just gets old after a while. What exactly is the RCC so guilty of, trying to shed the pointless Medevil scholasticism and "Everyone is damned to Hell" mentality and open up to a more humanist, mystical theology? If anything Rome has moved consistently more towards an Orthodox eastern understanding of theology, morality, and yes even liturgy over the past five decades and that we should be extremely thankful for.If there have been abuses committed by the clergy, where is the proof that the Vatican Council had anything to do with them? Most of the priest who perpetrated these abuses were educated in the pre Vatican II seminaries and ordained in the pre Vatican II Church. There is absolutely no evidence that the Vatican Council or the reforms it instituted had anything to do with these abuses. If anything the culture of abuse and cover up has a lot more in common with the Pre- Conciliar clericalism and authoritarian attitudes of the RCC's past then the present age with its emphasis on transparency and empowered laity.

There were two guiding principles of Vatican II: 1) to go back to the sources (ressourcement) and 2) bring the Catholic Church up to date (aggiornamento). Some of the end results were good, others not quite so good. The Melkite Catholics, though a minority in the Catholic communion, exerted significant influence at Vatican II, and due to their influence the Catholic Church in some areas followed the Eastern understanding. The Orthodox should appreciate this influence.

In other areas, the Latin Church dropped off the deep end. The organic, traditional Mass of the Latin Rite was replaced by a new Mass put together by liturgical scholars. Drastic changes were made: many high altars (with relics inside) were ripped from the wall and put in storage or worse, and were replaced in many cases by neo-modern altar tables. Churches began looking like spaceships and concrete bunkers, inside and out. Traditional devotions were discouraged. Latin and Gregorian chant were quite nearly eliminated (though Vatican II did not say this). These drastic changes were dropped on the people without their input. Many did not feel right about the changes. They had no option though to continue with the old Mass they knew, because the Mass with which they grew up was forbidden to be offered. In many cases I'm sure, the bishops and priests took too much leeway with the words of Vatican II. Yet, I think Rome went along with many of the changes, even if hesitant about the more radical ones. A considerable number of Catholics today, Eastern and Latin, are critical of Vatican II and the changes subsequent to it.

Not surprising. People have left the Church after every Ecumenical Council. Leaving over the Second Vatican Council itself is bogus. It was not the Council (and thus the Church) which erred, but people's erroneous interpretations of said council in order to justify their false views.

Grace and Peace Wyatt,

If such was the case, then you would have to lay blame on the Hierarchy who allowed such abuses and false views to go unchallenged for 30+ years. No longer can we say that the Roman Catholic Church is led inerrantly for surely we have all the evidence we need to prove otherwise within our own time. We have erred and we have the inordinate passions and sins to prove it within our own clergy.

I like Vatican Council II and deeply sympathize with what it tried to do within the Catholic Church (Open up the windows and let the fresh air in and so forth). I'm frankly so tired of hearing all this anti Vatican II propaganda tossed around the net, even on an Orthodox website like OCNet that it truly just gets old after a while. What exactly is the RCC so guilty of, trying to shed the pointless Medevil scholasticism and "Everyone is damned to Hell" mentality and open up to a more humanist, mystical theology? If anything Rome has moved consistently more towards an Orthodox eastern understanding of theology, morality, and yes even liturgy over the past five decades and that we should be extremely thankful for.If there have been abuses committed by the clergy, where is the proof that the Vatican Council had anything to do with them? Most of the priest who perpetrated these abuses were educated in the pre Vatican II seminaries and ordained in the pre Vatican II Church. There is absolutely no evidence that the Vatican Council or the reforms it instituted had anything to do with these abuses. If anything the culture of abuse and cover up has a lot more in common with the Pre- Conciliar clericalism and authoritarian attitudes of the RCC's past then the present age with its emphasis on transparency and empowered laity.

This doesn't hold up entirely as good history Robb...The kinder more mystical Church was apparent LONG before Vatican II. One of the ways that I've been able to open that line of thinking up more clearly is through a history of the monastic life and how that life once influenced a great multitude of the laity, then for a while had little to do but try to survive, and then began slowly coming back but without that old synergy with the laity that was all a part of monastic life. It is being forged again with third order religious but it still is a fact that diocesan priests provide the primary sources of spiritual life for most Catholics.

Go at the history using that as a pivotal point, and the writings of many of the saints since Trent and it is no longer so easy to draw that sharp line that you want to draw between Vatican II and what went before...presumably to at least Trent.

M

I do know that most of the pre Vatican II saints believed that almost everyone, including most Catholics went to Hell when they died. Now it is different, almost the exact opposite (Look at the Popes encyclical "Spe Salvi"). Something must have prompted this radical change in theology and morality from the Church. The old attitudes of clericalism and authoritarianism have also been greatly eroded and replaced with a more open, transparent, and lay centered Church (Or, at least one that tries to be).

I've seen the suggestion that a greater number of people, including Catholics, go to Hell when they die. Also expressed by pre Vatican II saints is the idea that many Catholics go to Purgatory, where they suffer, but are saved from eternal damnation.

A lot of problems are created when a segment of the laity begins criticizing the theological/liturgical direction that their Church is taking. Are these criticism really healthy for Catholicism as a whole? What would/are the alternatives to the situation that the RCC has embarked on since the Vatican Council m(Some 5 decades ago)?

Also, what is so awful to some about the Novus Ordo Mass? It was compiled together by liturgical scholars and not only is based on the earliest of Liturgical texts, but also has a strong Eastern flavor to it. I admit that this mass may not be as grandiose as the old Latin one, but for all those who critique it, there are many, many more who are spiritually enriched by it. If this liturgy seems plan and simple compared to the Tridentine, that's because it was designed to be. It is a liturgy that was designed by, of, and for the people of God to partake of.I also am not sure why some find it so disturbing that this Mass was compiled from ancient texts and Missals? After all the same thing was done with the various Western Orthodox rites and many people often take up their defense here. All liturgies after all were created at one point in time.

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Leaving aside the text itself, a significant criticism of the N.O. Mass is that so much irreverence is tolerated and even encouraged for the sake of encouraging personal participation "in the spirit of Vatican II". No doubt this is not what Rome intended with its reform, but as they seem to have indicated with the increased emphasis on returning to traditional modes of worship under Benedict XVI (a big proponent of the Latin Mass), many of the perhaps unforeseen side-effects of the liturgical revision have damaged the RC church, and should be curtailed or eliminated.

A lot of problems are created when a segment of the laity begins criticizing the theological/liturgical direction that their Church is taking. Are these criticism really healthy for Catholicism as a whole? What would/are the alternatives to the situation that the RCC has embarked on since the Vatican Council m(Some 5 decades ago)?

Also, what is so awful to some about the Novus Ordo Mass? It was compiled together by liturgical scholars and not only is based on the earliest of Liturgical texts, but also has a strong Eastern flavor to it. I admit that this mass may not be as grandiose as the old Latin one, but for all those who critique it, there are many, many more who are spiritually enriched by it. If this liturgy seems plan and simple compared to the Tridentine, that's because it was designed to be. It is a liturgy that was designed by, of, and for the people of God to partake of.I also am not sure why some find it so disturbing that this Mass was compiled from ancient texts and Missals? After all the same thing was done with the various Western Orthodox rites and many people often take up their defense here. All liturgies after all were created at one point in time.

In the case of Vatican II, it's not only the laity, but bishops, clergy and religious who are to varying degrees critical of the changes made. Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to the Novus Ordo Mass as a "fabrication" and a "banal on-the-spot product".

The New Mass now includes an epiclesis (an Eastern flavor), but it regrettably has a Protestant flavor as well, which several of my former Protestant, now Orthodox, friends note with astonishment.

Some of the Western Rite liturgies are put together from various missals. Others are the complete missals with minor changes. The Liturgy of St. Gregory, the one Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy which I have had the opportunity to attend, is essentially the Tridentine Latin Mass minus the filioque, in English, with an explicit epiclesis, and the distribution of the Eucharist by intinction. If the Novus Ordo does indeed represent the worship of the early Church in the West, it's interesting that no Western Rite Orthodox church, so far as I'm aware, has adopted the Novus Ordo as its ordinary Liturgy.

On participation: there are several types, vocal as well as internal. Vocal participation is not bad in many cases, as in the Carpatho-Russian tradition which has congregational singing, but people can participate internally as well, offering their prayers with those of the priest, and meditating on what is happening in the Mass. A similiar silent participation can be found in many Orthodox parishes in which the choir or cantors sing the prayers of the people. An unfortunate case with the Novus Ordo is that chant has all but died (even though Vatican II safeguarded it).

Were you by chance ever Roman Catholic? Have you been to Novus Ordo Masses and Tridentine Latin Masses?

Were you by chance ever Roman Catholic? Have you been to Novus Ordo Masses and Tridentine Latin Masses?

Yes, I was born and raised an RC, in the post Vatican II period and grew up with the Pauline mass as the norm. later on in life, I did attend a Tridentine Mass around 10 times (9 of which were in the solemn high form). I found it to be somewhat cold, distant, and unfamiliar (I actually find the Orthodox liturgy, even in old world languages to be far more warmer and personal then the Tridentine Latin rite). I keep hearing so many people tell of how wonderful and spiritually enriching the Latin Mass is, let me tell you that this was not my experience with this rite at all. Just the opposite for sure.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

I don't think I would particularly enjoy the Latin Mass, either. When I was fed up with the Latins, I went East (and also found things to be not exactly the paradise I had been told they would be). Still, reading through the old missal I have from the 1930s, it does seem more reverent than the average N.O. Mass, even if in practice it might suffer from other problems.

Were you by chance ever Roman Catholic? Have you been to Novus Ordo Masses and Tridentine Latin Masses?

Yes, I was born and raised an RC, in the post Vatican II period and grew up with the Pauline mass as the norm. later on in life, I did attend a Tridentine Mass around 10 times (9 of which were in the solemn high form). I found it to be somewhat cold, distant, and unfamiliar (I actually find the Orthodox liturgy, even in old world languages to be far more warmer and personal then the Tridentine Latin rite). I keep hearing so many people tell of how wonderful and spiritually enriching the Latin Mass is, let me tell you that this was not my experience with this rite at all. Just the opposite for sure.

Interesting experience. I've heard from a few persons, Orthodox and Catholic, who had a similiar experience.

The first Tridentine Latin Mass I attended was a Low Mass, and I did not care much for it, since standing in the back I could not hear any of the prayers. This was before I ever attended Divine Liturgy. A year or two later, I attended several High Masses (around 5 altogether, all but one at the same church). I found them considerably interesting, and I appreciated the chant. At the time though, I did consider the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy much warmer and heartfelt.

I never got warm and fuzzy feelings about the Novus Ordo Mass though. At the parish in which I grew up, everything was spoken in a grave, monotonous tone. The priest would stare down the families of crying babies, and everything was very stiff and artificial feeling (e.g. exchange of peace).

For a brief while, I was part of the Charismatic Catholic movement. Some very nice people who strove for Christian perfection. We had healing Masses, and the priest who offered it was friendly. The spirituality (speaking in tongues and the being slain in the spirit) never felt entirely right to me though... It was a struggle for me at the time, because I wanted orthodox spirituality and worship, but also kindness and less gravity. Ultimately, I found it in a Ruthenian Catholic parish I attended, and then in the Orthodox Church.

The fact that Sarum became obsolete preserved it from tampering hands at that time. The full ceremonial is very ornate and reminiscent of Byzantine splendour, with the use of flabellae and scores of men and boys apparelled in copes and dalmatics. That kind of liturgical life, of which I witnessed some of the dying embers in Normandy in the early 1980’s, is quite a contrast from the Counter-Reformation sobriety of the Roman rite in its extraordinary form.

That's exactly my feelings about the Tridentine Rite. It has a very cold, distant, and sober feeling to it. While the rite may have been truncated version of various pre Reformation Western liturgies, it was definitely influenced by the dour, very Calvinist influences that crept into (Or where deliberately embraced) by the Vatican in order to combat Protestantism. The Byzantine rite, by contrast has a much warmer, and communal feeling to it that is really lacking in the old Tridentine rite. Whether sung with high operatic style music, or simple plain chant, this rite has a much more personal feeling to it worship and less of a "businesslike" style.

It is almost as if the RCC, in order to combat Protestantism and its dour doctrines of predestination and iconoclasm, chose to "fight fire with fire" and became more streamlined in liturgy and severe in theology/morality. I guess that this was felt to be the trend that Western Christendom was seen to be heading in (After centuries of a more folsky, populous Christianity having taken hold amongst the people). It's unfortunate because so much of the old, pre schism form of "Western Orthodox" Christianity was preserved in these old traditions and the Reformation era closed the coffin on them completely.

I'm so happy to have been raised in Italian Catholicism. Italy was, of course not touched by the Reformation and the atmosphere of Catholicism is still very folsky, more akin to the Medevil type then in those countries which were the battleground for the Reformation/Counter Reformation. I always felt that the Italians, even though Roman rite are probably (Still today even) closer to Orthodoxy in their interpretation of Christianity then are those Catholics in Northern Europe.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Do you think this difference holds true for other people of southern Europe, Robb? Spain and Portugal, for instance?

My only personal experience with Roman Catholicism outside of the USA was in Mexico, and while they are certainly not immune to a certain kind of syncretism and corruption of the liturgy (that seems common to many parts of Latin America, if not all of Western Catholicism), I was incredibly impressed and moved to find the practice of the religion to be much more...I don't know how to put it..."grass roots" and filled with a large amount of personal reverence, and even a certain respect for some aspects of Eastern or Oriental spirituality (St. Charbel Makhlouf of the Syriac Maronite Church is very much beloved among many Mexicans I know, for instance). I sometimes think that this must have been at least partially because I attended a very small church in the poorest area of the city, where the local priest ran the orphanage I volunteered at and would invite me (as the only Spanish-speaking volunteer at the time) to his home for dinner and theological discussion. This kind of very personable, warm pastoral care is often not possible in larger places, but also seems to be not as often present or valued in the culture of the "estadounidenses" or others from largely Germanic/Northern backgrounds -- if I can stick my virtual foot in my mouth to try to make a point... (sorry! Entschuldigung!)

I hope someone, perhaps the Orthodox, will be able to revivify the people's faith, and come in and build new schools. I'm of partial Irish background. It would be a shame if we lost St. Patrick's country.

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth